At least S Marsh was in the top 10 in the Shield for the early part of the summer, so were Harris and Handscombe. Given how badly they have struggled against India I doubt Maxwell could do any better starting off on worse form. The level in quality between a Shield attack and top shelf test attack is so great that anyone even slightly off will be found out.

For a thread that is supposed to be all about facts and logic I thought current domestic form was relevant. Joe Burns and Matt Wade have done well so far with their current form this summer, so I have no problem with anyone suggesting they should get a go.

Maxwell's current Shield form has done nothing to put his name up in lights before the selectors. Not sure why he has only played 2 games and the rest have played 5 or 6 apart from those that played the ODI series against England. So instead we need to look at his career form, 7 hundreds from 104 innings does not scream top class player in the long form of the game either.

What has Maxwell done to deserve selection on his own merits and not based on the argument that somebody else is a dud?

For a thread that is supposed to be all about facts and logic I thought current domestic form was relevant. Joe Burns and Matt Wade have done well so far with their current form this summer, so I have no problem with anyone suggesting they should get a go.

Maxwell's current Shield form has done nothing to put his name up in lights before the selectors. Not sure why he has only played 2 games and the rest have played 5 or 6 apart from those that played the ODI series against England. So instead we need to look at his career form, 7 hundreds from 104 innings does not scream top class player in the long form of the game either.

What has Maxwell done to deserve selection on his own merits and not based on the argument that somebody else is a dud?

Mate, there's barely a player that deserves to be in the test team based upon your criteria.

Australian cricket has never been in worse shape in my life.

20 years ago Blewett, Law, Lehmann, Siddons and Elliot couldn't get a game for Australia, and now they would be the top 5 batsmen in the country by an absolute mile (along with Smith). Even Hayden & Langer struggled for periods.

Brownlow Medallist

Mate, there's barely a player that deserves to be in the test team based upon your criteria.

Australian cricket has never been in worse shape in my life.

20 years ago Blewett, Law, Lehmann, Siddons and Elliot couldn't get a game for Australia, and now they would be the top 5 batsmen in the country by an absolute mile (along with Smith). Even Hayden & Langer struggled for periods.

Yea I know all of that, back in the day Australia A would have beaten most test sides around the world. Those days are gone and the current crop are pretty dismal. No doubt people will blame too much short version of the game for promoting bad technique, bad habits and the wrong attitude. To me Maxwell just exemplifies that sort of cricketer, a short version specialist no longer well suited to playing the longer game.

Brownlow Medallist

For a thread that is supposed to be all about facts and logic I thought current domestic form was relevant. Joe Burns and Matt Wade have done well so far with their current form this summer, so I have no problem with anyone suggesting they should get a go.

Maxwell's current Shield form has done nothing to put his name up in lights before the selectors. Not sure why he has only played 2 games and the rest have played 5 or 6 apart from those that played the ODI series against England. So instead we need to look at his career form, 7 hundreds from 104 innings does not scream top class player in the long form of the game either.

What has Maxwell done to deserve selection on his own merits and not based on the argument that somebody else is a dud?

Club Legend

I dont hate Langer. Tho I dont think he has a great cricket brain or foresight either. He seems betwixt and between. Looking for that younger generational star in the making while at the same time going with a conservative mindset.
Just dont think he has the grander vision or eye to recognise what we need.
And when I hear him speak its just bland hyperbole of the highest order. Hes a stop gap coach at best.
At worst, he has the potential to set us back many many years.

Brownlow Medallist

I dont hate Langer. Tho I dont think he has a great cricket brain or foresight either. He seems betwixt and between. Looking for that younger generational star in the making while at the same time going with a conservative mindset.
Just dont think he has the grander vision or eye to recognise what we need.
And when I hear him speak its just bland hyperbole of the highest order. Hes a stop gap coach at best.At worst, he has the potential to set us back many many years.

Agree but I for one dont want to dive further south.
I just think hes the wrong bloke to resurrect the situation in any way shape or form other than being a "good bloke".
Which I think was the premier reason for his appointment. Hope Im wrong. I really do.

Brownlow Medallist

Same applies to you arguing for his inclusion. That is based upon two matches also, because that is all there is to go on. Before that his ODI series against South Africa was pretty uninspiring.

The way it works is that blokes outside the team have to keep their name in lights for the selectors. He hasn't done that, so he doesn't get looked at. The incumbents in the side for the most part were making some runs in Shield cricket in the few weeks between the ODI series and the first test squad being selected.

He just hasn't done anything to demand selection, and his career record has nothing in it to recommend him either. I just don't understand the obsession people have with him. I don't think he has been hard done by. He has been given a chance to prove he is shit, and he has proved it.

150 game legend.

I actually don't mind Glenn Maxwell making a comeback. I haven't been a fan of him in the past but he's probably been one the most talented batsmen in Australian cricket atm. He's biggest flaws have always been his maturity and game awareness. That said his form last in the year shield was awesome. I'd rather see him at 6 in the Ashes over Wade, Mitch Marsh, Handsomb or wade.

Whenever I hear him speak I'm reminded that he was forced to retire due to repeated head injuries. He did, however, take a basket case of a WA team and turn it into pretty successful one, so he must have some coaching capability.

Brownlow Medallist

Same applies to you arguing for his inclusion. That is based upon two matches also, because that is all there is to go on. Before that his ODI series against South Africa was pretty uninspiring.

The way it works is that blokes outside the team have to keep their name in lights for the selectors. He hasn't done that, so he doesn't get looked at. The incumbents in the side for the most part were making some runs in Shield cricket in the few weeks between the ODI series and the first test squad being selected.

He just hasn't done anything to demand selection, and his career record has nothing in it to recommend him either. I just don't understand the obsession people have with him. I don't think he has been hard done by. He has been given a chance to prove he is shit, and he has proved it.

Actually if you read my posts I haven’t argued for his inclusion anywhere.

What I’ve argued is that he has the credentials to suggest he is a test player.

‘He hasn’t done that.’
He’s played two shield matches, been dismissed 3 times - and as someone pointed out, he could do basically nothing about one of those dismissals as he was at the non striker’s end.
You keep banging on about demanding selection - no one in Australia has demanded selection. What he has done, is show that over a lengthy period of time, he scores runs at a better average than virtually everyone else in Australia at the moment. He has proven he can play a good, lengthy test innings - Marcus Harris can play a series at home and do no better than a 70-odd but he’s ‘the find of the summer and shown he’s a test player’ but apparently making a century in India where Australian batsmen struggle more than anywhere else somehow DOESNT prove Maxwell can play test cricket.

You’ve claimed he’s this ticking time bomb of stupidity just itching for a chance to play a dumb shot - I’ve given you written proof that he’s no more likely - based on evidence so far in his test career - to get out to a silly shot than the next bloke.

Norm Smith Medallist

Actually if you read my posts I haven’t argued for his inclusion anywhere.

What I’ve argued is that he has the credentials to suggest he is a test player.

‘He hasn’t done that.’
He’s played two shield matches, been dismissed 3 times - and as someone pointed out, he could do basically nothing about one of those dismissals as he was at the non striker’s end.
You keep banging on about demanding selection - no one in Australia has demanded selection. What he has done, is show that over a lengthy period of time, he scores runs at a better average than virtually everyone else in Australia at the moment. He has proven he can play a good, lengthy test innings - Marcus Harris can play a series at home and do no better than a 70-odd but he’s ‘the find of the summer and shown he’s a test player’ but apparently making a century in India where Australian batsmen struggle more than anywhere else somehow DOESNT prove Maxwell can play test cricket.

You’ve claimed he’s this ticking time bomb of stupidity just itching for a chance to play a dumb shot - I’ve given you written proof that he’s no more likely - based on evidence so far in his test career - to get out to a silly shot than the next bloke.

One of the reasons Australian cricket is in the spot it’s in is because it has resorted to the England method of picking a flavour of the month player who has maybe hit a good score or two recently but has no career long demonstration of consistency. It rarely works.

Why would anyone simply write off someone who is mathematically superior to almost all their rivals in every way, based on - basically - a hunch (I can see no other way of describing some of the anti-Maxwell arguments) when the cupboard is so bare?

Norm Smith Medallist

One of the reasons Australian cricket is in the spot it’s in is because it has resorted to the England method of picking a flavour of the month player who has maybe hit a good score or two recently but has no career long demonstration of consistency. It rarely works.

Why would anyone simply write off someone who is mathematically superior to almost all their rivals in every way, based on - basically - a hunch (I can see no other way of describing some of the anti-Maxwell arguments) when the cupboard is so bare?

When the century as great as it was was the only score he has made past 50 in the first 14 starts to a Test career you don't think that is a bit understandable? Again I disagree with the other guy I think he needs another decent opportunity but almost all of the hyperbole over him and his non selection is coming from the Bushranger fanboy side, even the likes of Haigh on board that I expected a lot better from.

Norm Smith Medallist

When the century as great as it was was the only score he has made past 50 in the first 14 starts to a Test career you don't think that is a bit understandable? Again I disagree with the other guy I think he needs another decent opportunity but almost all of the hyperbole over him and his non selection is coming from the Bushranger fanboy side, even the likes of Haigh on board that I expected a lot better from.

I'm not a Bushranger fan boy, but I do see hypocrisy in the selections of the senior side. When players like the Marsh brothers can continually get games in place of technically better batsman and just better cricketers, while Marnus Labushagne can be plucked entirely from obscurity, it pisses me off. There's no merit system, no time spent earning selection. The baggy green may as well just be picked from a crate on the side of the road.

Maxwell is no world beater, but he's a walk-up start in this test side. The fact that he didn't even get a look in for Pakistan, then had his domestic season practically ruined by being the permanent 12th man, then challenged to score centuries in only 3 innings speaks a lot of where Australian cricket is. The fact that Mitchell Marsh can be dropped after performing like shit, go back to Shield and continue to perform like shit, then get a call back to the national team is a disgrace.

Club Legend

The only way I see maxwell being picked in the test team is as a spinning all rounder. With the selectors opting to use Lamuchagne in that role now, and with Warner and Smith returning I don’t see him even being considered for the test side in England. The selectors will use a medium pace all rounder over there. He definitely should’ve gone to the UAE, that was a shocking decision not to take him on tour there.

He has to pile on runs in the remaining shield matches to force his way in. No one is doing this at shield level so they don’t get a look in.

This must have been mentioned at least 20 times on this board, whilst a legitimate point I find it a tad amusing as most other batsmen they probably wouldn't give a shit about the circumstances of their dismissal.

But they’re not. The best batsman in the country right now at shield level is a bloke who has played 20 tests for Australia and averaged 28. That’s the best going around right now. Gilchrist batted in the same position and averaged 48 for Australia. People thinking bog average batsmen playing shield cricket are going to make centuries for Australia are kidding themselves.

Marcus Harris made a big double century for Victoria and averaged over 70 so was rewarded with a test birth. He’s someone Langer wasn’t a fan of when he left WA, yet forced his way in off his own bat. People acting as though there’s some conspiracy against Victorian players not being selected for Australia should realise that there’s no one pressing their claim for a call up.